Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: cooperway4 Date: Jan 6, 2011 6:26pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please remove

17 U.S.C C92,App III, ยง102 (a)(1) United States law to prevail in conflict. - No provision of any of the Uruguay Round Agreements, nor the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance, that is inconsistent with any law of the United States shall have effect.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Video-Cellar Date: Jan 7, 2011 3:38am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please remove

Basically this means that, where there is conflict between the foreign and US terms of copyright, the US terms prevail. This effectively means that the US term is used to calculate the length of copyright in the US, so the US copyright might be longer or shorter than the source country term.

The implemented provisions are automatically consistent with US law simply because they have been integrated into US law and further because have successfully beaten a number of constitutional challenges. Therefore, these provisions (ie the restoration of the copyright in the works in question) should prevail over all other international laws, agreements and treaties under the terms of the section you quoted.



This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2011-01-07 11:38:28

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cooperway4 Date: Jan 7, 2011 3:19am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please remove

hmm, I don't think you're gonna find a definition of 'any' in the statutes.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Video-Cellar Date: Jan 7, 2011 3:36am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please remove

The law doesn't need a definition of 'any' to prove that it is not doing what you are attempting to say it is doing.